Resolving the Inconsistency between National and EU Motor Insurance Law. Was Factortame the Solution nobody Sought?

In this article we argue that the continued uncertainty of UK national motor vehicle insurance law when viewed in respect of its EU parent, the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directive (MVID), has not been satisfactorily addressed using the remedy available through the non-contractual liability of the State. The existing enforcement mechanisms have equally been haphazard in their effectiveness and success in affording rights to third-party victims. Given the link between the MVID and the free movement of persons and goods on which the harmonization of insurance protection was based, we present the first article establishing an argument for the offending aspects of UK national law to be disapplied. Whilst the UK has concluded its agreement to withdraw its membership from the EU and thus to be bound by EU law and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice, until the transitional period is completed the UK remains aligned to EU law. It is committed to follow superior EU law and the judgments of the Court of Justice. Hence the remedy issued from the Factortame line of case authorities may prove to be the most effective way to grant access to rights which continue to be denied to victims in the UK

Catalyzing Collaboration: The Developing Infrastructure for Federal Public Private Partnerships

There is growing interest on the part of government, philanthropy and business to work together to achieve greater impact. Partnerships that span the sectors have the potential to achieve more than any sector can achieve on its own by leveraging the strengths of each. However, such partnerships also give rise to added costs and entail greater risks. To address these challenges, offices of strategic partnerships are emerging at the federal level to provide an infrastructure to catalyze cross-sectoral partnerships. This report examines 21 such offices in federal departments and agencies whose purpose is to facilitate and accelerate partnerships with philanthropy and business -- ranging from the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Education, to the Department of State and the Agency for International Development, to the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The formation of these offices has been driven by champions within government -- many with prior experience in philanthropy or business -- that have witnessed the power of working collaboratively with other sectors. Their actions have often been reinforced by executive orders and other directives conducive to their growth. In the case of those offices that have been created in the last few years, they have also been encouraged by the examples of their more established counterparts

Foundation Support for Nonprofit Capital Needs in Southern California

Analyzes trends in foundation funding for nonprofits' capital campaigns, land acquisition, and building and renovation in five counties. Lists foundations that may provide capital support, but suggests securing other primary sources of capital funding

Foundations in Los Angeles: An Assessment of the Last 25 Years

Philanthropy has changed in marked ways over the last 25 years. We have seen new players, new giving vehicles and new approaches. New players came on the scene from their economic success in the tech industry, financial institutions and other growth industries. Many of them are younger, more diverse and committed to philanthropy. Many took advantage of new structures for giving, such as donor advised funds and philanthropic LLCs leading to a donor-centered philanthropy. These donors adopted new strategies that, at their core, aspire for greater impact, not merely doing good.These forces have created a crescendo that is reflected in the way philanthropy is practiced today. Early in this period, strategic philanthropy and nonprofit capacity building – elements central to the venture philanthropy movement – were the focus. In the intervening years, a number of efforts have emerged: philanthropic collaboration, public policy engagement, public philanthropic partnerships, impact investing, diversity and inclusion, and new giving models that are more flexible and nimbler. Some of these approaches have taken hold as evidenced by the emergence of related infrastructure organizations and affinity groups. In other instances, the developments are at an earlier stage, yet are gaining traction. And, there are others where it is still too early to tell. Despite these different stages, it is clear that this generation of philanthropy is marked by a focus on impact.We have seen these changes unfold here in Los Angeles. In this paper, to provide context, we begin by reflecting on the changing foundation landscape and the prospects for even more changes in the future. Then, we work through the eight strategies that have defined this generation, exploring how they have shaped the way L.A. foundations approach their work. For each strategy, we share some notable examples that bring each to life, providing a vivid portrait of the changes that are reshaping philanthropy in the region. We conclude with reflections on how this generation of impact has found expression in L.A. philanthropy and offer some thoughts on what the future may hold.

Motor vehicle insurance law: ignoring the lessons from King Rex

Following a review in 2013, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) established the Uninsured Drivers Agreement (UDA) 2015. The aim was to implement aspects of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Directives (MVID). The UDA 2015 contained numerous errors in its drafting and led to widespread criticism due to its incompatibility with EU law and common law principles. In January 2017 the MIB provided its Supplementary Uninsured Drivers Agreement. If its aim was to remedy these problems we argue that it has substantially failed. Further, the updated Agreement continues the uncertainty of the law in this area and, with reference to Fuller’s ‘Eight Ways to Fail to Make Law’, we present an argument that the Secretary of State for Transport should again redraft the UDA 2015 and the 2017 Supplement to provide legal certainty, remove the inconsistencies between national and EU law, and provide the protection to which third-party victims of uninsured drivers are entitled under EU law

Misunderstanding and misapplication of motor insurance law: will the Supreme Court come to the rescue?

For many years a tension has existed between the law of the European Union governing motor vehicle insurance and the UK’s transposition, interpretation and application of its national law. Cases including Delaney v Pickett & Tradewise [2011] EWCA Civ 1532 and EUI v Bristol Alliance Partnership[2012] EWCA Civ 1267 have demonstrated the UK’s misunderstanding of its legal obligations in this area and has led to the award of damages to affected individuals against the UK. On 5 December 2016 the Court of Appeal issued its judgment in the case Sahin v Havard and Riverstone Insurance (UK) Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1202. The Court was tasked to apply provisions of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to a victim of an unauthorised driver in a claim against the policyholder and the insurer. It is argued here that the Court has misunderstood and misapplied the EU parent law in its application of national law. The case may ultimately be determined by the Supreme Court but it is a ruling of sufficient significance in its lack of adherence to EU law and, given the notoriety of cases demonstrating the inconsistencies of the Court of Appeal’s decisions in motor vehicle insurance law, it is worrying that these judgments seemingly have been ignored. The ruling also has important implications for the consequences that Brexit will have on motor vehicle insurance. This is particularly if, as is expected, the UK pursues a ‘hard Brexit’ without access to the single market and the need to comply with the free movement principles through which the motor vehicle insurance directives are based. The UK would therefore be freed of the compatibility issues demonstrated in Sahin, but this will likely leave third party victims in a weaker position

Splitting Hairs?

Is it discrimination? James Marson & Katy Ferris examine the different approaches of the court to mistreatment on grounds of nationality & immigration status

After arrival, the problems facing refugees and their families : a clinical legal response

Since 2016, a Refugee Family Reunion Law Clinic has operated from Sheffield Hallam University’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice (hereafter HKC Law Clinic). Given the austerity-driven political agenda of the UK government in cutting public funding to advisory services, the effects of LASPO and a continuing refugee crisis, refugees in many parts of the UK were in need of legal and non-legal assistance. To fill this gap in services university law clinics, including our own, began to offer specialised services to assist the refugee population. This has included family reunion and exceptional case funding applications, and expert legal advice for individuals who find themselves stateless, yet in many instances the formal assistance ends at this stage. The HKC Law Clinic and its staff have remained in contact with many of our refugee clients (some are now engaged as interpreters). Through this interaction we have observed a particular problem of the lack of post-arrival support for refugees and their families. Developing the Therapeutic Jurisprudence philosophy upon which the clinic is based, and thus ensuring a therapeutically positive experience for the Clinic’s users, we have begun a process of creating a more holistic clinical experience. Following the refugee clients’ successful family reunion application, and when building their new lives together in the local region, our clinic offers a range of support services to assist in the pragmatic issues facing the family. This aspect of the HKC Law Clinic is in its infancy, but this paper aims to demonstrate what university law clinics can achieve and provides examples of our experiences so far